Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

prof s c pratihar (medical practitioner &legal studies)     12 September 2010

contempt of court act 1971

dear members i sl be grateful if any body can enlight me regarding any rulesin the contempt of court act where contempt court reversed the original judgment passed by honble justice k venkatraman  of madras high court .it was directed to principal t m dental college chennai to handover course completion certificate and all other certificates of my daughter within 2 weeks.order though passed by consent was not complied with.when contempt case was moved original order was reversed and directed to do one year more internship which she is doing .has not got reg no. kindly adv further. thanks dr sc pratihar



 6 Replies

S.Sabarinadh (Student)     12 September 2010

Actually sir, In accordance with the purview of either 129 or if 214 of the constitution, the contempt of court must be taken in cognizance by the court itself, but as you moved on with the appeal and the judgement seems to be reversed and i will insist you for getting the medias along with a revision petition to the High court or an appeal to the Supreme court may it lead you for the ultimate destiny of justice

Best of luck...................

prof s c pratihar (medical practitioner &legal studies)     13 September 2010

madras high court one bench fixed for taking contempt matters.so another honble justice sitting in contempt jurisdiction passed an order which is against the original order.contempt of court is akin to execution texecution proceeding and it can not go beyond the degree.since contempt proceedings are not decree it id not appealable   (ayyar"s judicial dictionary).waiting for openion  advice of our experts tnks dr pratihar

prof s c pratihar (medical practitioner &legal studies)     22 October 2010

since no reply from any corner i had to made a through studies .i could found that a court can pass a right as well a wrong order.the order if not appealable then next course should be to start a colateral proceeding against that wrong judgment for a legal remedy.any further openion will be gratefully acknowledged.

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     29 October 2010

i think in case of contempt of court, the original order can not be changed or altered, if it is done the contemot petition will be baseless.

however i am not a lawyer, please correct me if i am wrong.

prof s c pratihar (medical practitioner &legal studies)     29 October 2010

thank you sir.few minutes back i wrote regarding transfer of judges.truth even absolute difficult to implement.scenerio may be changed once acountability bill is passed by l parliament.

P.Padmanaabhan (advocate)     02 March 2012

dear porfessor SCP. i came across this thread by google  serach when I  uploaded  the browser woth Contempt Act 1971 Madras High Court   Rules. I read  one  thiru.sabarinath having posted inter alia  :  "Actually sir, In accordance with the purview of either 129 or if 214 of the constitution, the contempt of court must be taken in cognizance by the court itself,.."

But read this portion of the judgment  of Madras high court in the case of  K.S.Illangovan vs The HighCourt Of Judicature.  ( https://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/632996/) :

"The petitioner is an advocate practicing in this High Court. He has filed this petition seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to amendment dated 20th September, 2007 amending Rule 6 (Sub-rules 2 & 3) of the Contempt of Court Rules of the High Court of Madras, 1975 and quash the same as unconstitutional and ultra vires to Articles 215 and 225 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. The petitioner has appeared in person. Respondent No.1 is represented by Mr.V.Ayyathurai, learned counsel and Respondent No.2  Government of Tamil Nadu is represented by Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General.

3. Sub-Rules 2 & 3 of Rule 6 of the Contempt of Court Rules of the High Court of Madras, 1975 prior to the impugned amendment, read as follows: - 6(2) Every such application shall be posted before the Judge or Judges in respect of whose Judgment, Decree, Direction, Order, writ or other process the contempt is alleged, for orders as to whether notice shall issue to the alleged contemner. 6(3) In case the Judge or Judges concerned is or are not available, the Chief Justice may direct that the application be posted before some other Judge or Judges as the case may be for orders as to whether notice shall issue to the alleged contemner.

4. The aforesaid Rule was amended by amendment No.ROC No.855-A/2000/PR dated 20th September, 2007 and the amendment reads as follows: - In Rule 6, Sub Rule (2) of the Contempt of Court Rules, High Court, Madras, 1975, the following provision shall be inserted in the place of the existing provision.  Every such application shall be posted before the Judge or Judges nominated by the Honble Chief Justice for orders as to whether notice shall issue to the alleged contemner. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the said Rules, shall stand deleted and sub-rules (4) to (6) shall be numbered as (3) to (5)"

But the  advocate who filed  the Wirt petiton lost it ( it was dismissed) . The resaons are given in paar 10 of the judgment cited above. Therefore if the conetmpt petiton need not be posted  before the same judge. OIt is the discretion of the CJ to post it. .

But the sad and intriguing aspect  of your matter is the order of the  high Court  of which the respodent had committed  contempt by wilful disobedience  has been reversed when posted  before another judge. I Do not think he was competent at all.  Did u pursue the matter  and what was the result?  

P.Padmanaabhan,  advocate at 09:42 AM IST on 2dn march 2012 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Related Threads


Loading
Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads

LCI Learning Hindu Laws


Popular Discussion


view more »




Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query